Which candid B+W Fuji film.... ?

I want a grainy effect candid B+W print which will be slightly sepia toned by

the lab. Need as much exposure latitude as poss..... and preferably ISO3200

for indoors without the strobe. Think of the Calvin Klein adverts of the 90?s.....

 

Should I buy :

 

- Fuji NPZ 800 (C41 colour), push 2 stops and then ask for B+W prints.

 

- Fuji super G 1600 (C41 colour), push 1 stop and then ask for B+W prints.

 

- Fuji 400cn (C41 B+W chromo) pushed 3 stops.

 

- Fuji Neopan 1600 (std. B+W) pushed 1 stop.

 

Why not Kodak ???? ?Because green is my favourite colour?..... Closetted I

know..

TTFN.....NB

3200 would be a struggle for Neopan 1600. It's a 640 or 800 film that pushes fairly well to a point, but unless you can do with contrasty prints with absolutely zero in the shadows, limit it to 1600 or better still 1000.

 

You might have to buy a very wide aperture lens!

Do yourself a favour and get Ilford Delta 3200.

Thanks peeps... did'nt know about Ilford Delta 3200, have just ordered 4 rolls

from 7dayshop..... Hope the exposure latitude is better than the HP5 I bought

last year.....

 

TTFN.........

NB

Neopan 1600 in Microphen is really 1600. I don't know why people keep insisting it isn't. Push it to 3200 and the grain is still acceptable.<div></div>

With all B&W films,exposure latitude varies with subject brightness range.The higher the range,the lower the over-exposure latitude.(Low contrast scenes,will have higher exp latitudes,and vice versa).Always try to "expose for the shadows,and print for the highlights".Contrasty indoor light,without any "fill" and Delta or T-Max 3200,should give you the effect you seek.You might even re-try HP5 or Tri-X and try some different developers.(Tri-X at 1000 in Rodinal has a gritty,grainy look).

I sure hope you're willing to process that Delta 3200 (same with Neopan 1600) yourself because you'll get trash results from a commercial lab with speeds ranging from 400-1600. Then you're stuck getting conventional B/W prints made because Delta 3200 is going to look downright terrible printed on a modern digital printer like a Noritsu or Frontier.

 

If it were my shoot I'd use 1600 speed print film like Super G, push it a stop, and then get greyscale prints made. I hope you have a darkroom.

Remember peeps (perhaps I should have reminded you first)... I am an

amateur grade amateur, I regard you guys as professional grade amateurs (or

perhaps some of you are "real" professionals - I don't know your lines of

business) so as you say so often my "mileage varies" ;-)....

 

.... so I don't process.... Peak Imaging do that for me on their "pro service". As

stated previously by myself, they are a fantastic lab who produce nothing but

quality (again "your mileage may vary").

 

However, your kind and effforted responses have been cordially noted by little

ol' me and I shall send Peak Imagaing some test material on both Delta 3200

and the super G 1600 left over in my fridge (pushed 1 stop and greyscaled of

course) before deciding on how to shoot my buddies wedding....... (non-

officially)...

 

Again - thank you....

TTFN....NB

<i>Fuji super G 1600 (C41 colour), push 1 stop and then ask for B+W prints.</i><p>

 

<i> ... wedding</i><p>

 

Oh dear!

<p><i>expose for the shadows,and print for the highlights"</i><br><br>I always thought it was expose for the shadows and <b>develop</b> for the highlights...</p>

I'm a fan of Neopan 1600 rated at 1600, souped in Xtol 1:3. Has as good as grain as anything at that speed, if you expose it properly.

 

<p>

I underexposed this by a couple stops just to get a high enough shutter speed. And the grain pops out. So in essence, this was shot on Neopan 1600 at 6400 (but developed for 1600).

 

<p>

--<br>

Eric<br>

<a href="http://www.merrillphotography.com/">Sioux Falls Portrait Photographer</a><br><div></div>

<I>Oh dear!</i><P>Want to put money on it? You see, this is the problem with these type of posts....... Somebody asks what type of B/W film to use, and immediatley everybody concludes he has his own darkroom, experience processing high speed B/W films, and will then be hand printing them on fiber paper vs having some poor lab operator try to figure out what channel to print Ilford 3200 on with the Fuji Frontier. Get a clue. If you want 1600 speed from a commercial lab using a color digital printer like 80% of them have, you shoot 1600 speed print film, not send Ilford 3200 to a commercial lab.<P>Nicholas can send his Delta 3200 to a commercial lab, and I'll shoot 1600 speed print film. We'll then scan the results, make prints, and see what looks better. You won't win. <P>First, the commercially processed Delta 3200 will have a true speed ranging from 400-3200 because the lab will simply throw it in a tank and guess at the processing time, which we all know Ilford doesn't list right in the first place. The Ilford will also require hand printing on B/W paper because 35mm Delta 3200 that's been processed even close to 3200 speed will have grain that looks like Konica 3200 that's been pushed 4 stops and reticulated when scanned. This stuff looks worse when I tried it in my 6x7 RB than Fuji NPZ in my 35mm. But we all know this about about fiddling with B/W film vs good results, right Nicholas?

"You see, this is the problem with these type of posts....... Somebody asks what type of B/W film to use, and immediatley everybody concludes he has his own darkroom, experience processing high speed B/W films"

 

Nope, nobody is assuming anything.

 

"Get a clue. If you want 1600 speed from a commercial lab using a color digital printer like 80% of them have"

 

Here's a clue: He asked for black & white 3200 film.

 

"Nicholas can send his Delta 3200 to a commercial lab, and I'll shoot 1600 speed print film. We'll then scan the results, make prints, and see what looks better. You won't win."

 

Is this a competition? Is your film better than mine? Is my lens longer than yours?

 

"First, the commercially processed Delta 3200 will have a true speed ranging from 400-3200 because the lab will simply throw it in a tank and guess at the processing time, which we all know Ilford doesn't list right in the first place. The Ilford will also require hand printing on B/W paper because 35mm Delta 3200 that's been processed even close to 3200 speed will have grain that looks like Konica 3200 that's been pushed 4 stops and reticulated when scanned."

 

I don't know where you get your stuff developed but as you regularly suggest (and in invariably rude style) get another decent lab. And if he just buys a ton of D3200 or whatever film and shoots a wedding without running some tests first, it is his fault that they'll end up as a mess. I send any HP5 or D3200 to Ilford directly using their mailers and get a nice (not brilliant) set of prints back. Doesn't really matter what the prints look like as I scan the negatives in the end and with a 3200/6400 film I can take the shot in the first place.

 

Also, I don't know what Konica 3200 pushed 4 stops looks like but usually HP5 pushed one stop with a f/1.8 lens is fast enough for me. If not, some D3200 will do nicely. And given that all the reviews I've read in magazines say that D3200 has the finest grain around (even pushed to 6400) I'll take their word, what I see and even Mr Greenspun's word too (http://www.photo.net/equipment/film#Delta).

 

In the end, 1600 might be enough so all this is academic, but since he asked for 3200, Delta 3200 is an option that should be examined. Oh, sorry, I forgot: a) I am a nobody, b) I don't have any photo uploads (because jpegs without colour profiles viewed in uncalibrated monitors prove a lot), c) I should just shut up, d) I should have my eyes examined.

Everyone seems to be ignoring the actual question. He's not looking for the finest grain, greatest contrast or shooting like this because his lens isn't fast enough. He wants a grainy effect. Any suggestions for that?